Professional Documents
Culture Documents
164241-2009-Spouses Lequin v. Spouses Vizconde20180924-5466-Jzd0os PDF
164241-2009-Spouses Lequin v. Spouses Vizconde20180924-5466-Jzd0os PDF
DECISION
VELASCO, JR. , J : p
The Case
This is an appeal under Rule 45 from the Decision 1 dated July 20, 2006 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 83595, which declared the Kasulatan ng
Bilihang Tuluyan ng Lupa 2 (Kasulatan) valid as between the parties, but required
respondents to return the amount of PhP50,000 to petitioners. Also assailed is the
March 30, 2007 CA Resolution 3 denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
The Facts
Petitioner Ramon Lequin, husband of petitioner Virginia Lequin, is the brother of
respondent Salome L. Vizconde and brother-in-law of respondent Raymundo Vizconde.
With this consanguine and affinity relation, the instant case developed as follows:
In 1995, petitioners, residents of Diamond Court, Brixton Ville Subdivision,
Camarin, Caloocan City, bought the subject lot consisting of 10,115 square meters
from one Carlito de Leon (de Leon). The sale was negotiated by respondent Raymundo
Vizconde. The subject lot is located near the Sto. Rosario to Magsaysay road in Aliaga,
Nueva Ecija. Adjacent thereto and located in between the subject lot and the road
is a dried up canal (or sapang patay in the native language).
In 1997, respondents represented to petitioners that they had also bought from
Carlito de Leon a 1,012-square meter lot adjacent to petitioners' property and built a
house thereon. As later con rmed by de Leon, however, the 1,012-square meter lot
claimed by respondents is part of the 10,115-square meter lot petitioners bought from
him. Petitioners believed the story of respondents, since it was Raymundo who
negotiated the sale of their lot with de Leon. With the consent of respondents,
petitioners then constructed their house on the 500-square meter half-portion of the
1,012 square-meter lot claimed by respondents, as this was near the road.
Respondents' residence is on the remaining 512 square meters of the lot. IADCES
Given this situation where petitioners' house stood on a portion of the lot
allegedly owned by respondents, petitioners consulted a lawyer, who advised them that
the 1,012-square meter lot be segregated from the subject lot whose title they own and
to make it appear that they are selling to respondents 512 square meters thereof. This
sale was embodied in the February 12, 2000 Kasulatan where it was made to appear
that respondents paid PhP15,000 for the purchase of the 512-square meter portion of
the subject lot. In reality, the consideration of PhP15,000 was not paid to petitioners.
Actually, it was petitioners who paid respondents PhP50,000 for the 500-square meter
portion where petitioners built their house on, believing respondents' representation
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
that the latter own the 1,012-square meter lot.
In July 2000, petitioners tried to develop the dried up canal located between their
500-square meter lot and the public road. Respondents objected, claiming ownership
of said dried up canal or sapang patay.
This prompted petitioners to look into the ownership of the dried up canal and
the 1,012 square-meter lot claimed by respondents. Carlito de Leon told petitioners
that what he had sold to respondents was the dried up canal or sapang patay and that
the 1,012-square meter lot claimed by respondents really belongs to petitioners.
Thus, on July 13, 2001, petitioners led a Complaint 4 for Declaration of Nullity of
Contract, Sum of Money and Damages against respondents with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 28 in Cabanatuan City, praying, among others, for the declaration of
the February 12, 2000 Kasulatan as null and void ab initio, the return of PhP50,000 they
paid to respondents, and various damages. The case was docketed as Civil Case No.
4063.
The Ruling of the RTC
On July 5, 2004, after due trial on the merits with petitioners presenting three
witnesses and respondents only one witness, the trial court rendered a Decision 5 in
favor of petitioners. The decretal portion reads:
WHEREFORE, viewed from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in
favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants as follows:
SO ORDERED. 6
The RTC found the Kasulatan allegedly conveying 512 square meters to
respondents to be null and void due to: (1) the vitiated consent of petitioners in the
execution of the simulated contract of sale; and (2) lack of consideration, since it was
shown that while petitioners were ostensibly conveying to respondents 512 square
meters of their property, yet the consideration of PhP15,000 was not paid to them and,
in fact, they were the ones who paid respondents PhP50,000. The RTC held that
respondents were guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation.
Aggrieved, respondents appealed the above RTC Decision to the CA.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
The Ruling of the CA
The appellate court viewed the case otherwise. On July 20, 2006, it rendered the
assailed Decision granting respondents' appeal and declaring as valid the Kasulatan.
The fallo reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is GRANTED. The
Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan dated February 12, 2000 is declared valid.
However, Spouses Raymundo Vizconde and Salome Lequin Vizconde are hereby
ordered to return to the plaintiffs the amount of P50,000.00 without interest.
SO ORDERED. 7
In reversing and vacating the RTC Decision, the CA found no simulation in the
contract of sale,i.e., Kasulatan. Relying on Manila Banking Corporation v. Silverio, 8 the
appellate court pointed out that an absolutely simulated contract takes place when the
parties do not intend at all to be bound by it, and that it is characterized by the fact that
the apparent contract is not really desired or intended to produce legal effects or in any
way alter the juridical situation of the parties. It read the sale contract (Kasulatan) as
clear and unambiguous, for respondents (spouses Vizconde) were the buyers and
petitioners (spouses Lequin) were the sellers. Such being the case, petitioners are, to
the CA, the owners of the 1,012-square meter lot, and as owners they conveyed the
512-square meter portion to respondents.
The CA viewed petitioners' claim that they executed the sale contract to make it
appear that respondents bought the property as mere gratuitous allegation. Besides,
the sale contract was duly notarized with respondents claiming the 512-square meter
portion they bought from petitioners and not the whole 1,012-square meter lot as
alleged by petitioners. TCDHIc
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN NOT
GIVING DUE CREDENCE TO THE FINDINGS OF FACTS OF THE TRIAL COURT AND
HOW THE LATTER APPRECIATED THE TESTIMONIES GIVEN BY THE
WITNESSES;
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
III
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN
FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE RESPONDENT-
VIZCONDES;
IV
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN
CONSIDERING THAT THE KASULATAN NG BILIHANG TULUYAN IS A VALID
CONTRACT OF SALE;
V
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, ERRED IN NOT
CONSIDERING THAT THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL
CAPACITY TO PURCHASE THE SUBJECT LAND FROM THE PETITIONERS. 9 HTDAac
The second exception provided for the acceptance of parol evidence applies to
the instant case. Lack of consideration was proved by petitioners' evidence aliunde
showing that the Kasulatan did not express the true intent and agreement of the
parties. As explained above, said sale contract was fraudulently entered into through
the misrepresentations of respondents causing petitioners' vitiated consent.
Moreover, the evidence of petitioners was uncontroverted as respondents failed
to adduce any proof that they indeed paid PhP15,000 to petitioners. Indeed, having
asserted their purchase of the 512-square meter portion of petitioners based on the
Kasulatan, it behooves upon respondents to prove such a rmative defense of
purchase. Unless the party asserting the a rmative defense of an issue sustains the
burden of proof, his or her cause will not succeed. If he or she fails to establish the
facts of which the matter asserted is predicated, the complainant is entitled to a verdict
or decision in his or her favor. 1 6
In the instant case, the record is bereft of any proof of payment by respondents
and, thus, their a rmative defense of the purported purchase of the 512-square meter
portion fails. Thus, the clear finding of the trial court: ECDHIc
There can be no doubt that the contract of sale or Kasulatan lacked the essential
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
element of consideration. It is a well-entrenched rule that where the deed of sale states
that the purchase price has been paid but in fact has never been paid, the deed of sale
is null and void ab initio for lack of consideration. 1 8 Moreover, Art. 1471 of the Civil
Code, which provides that "if the price is simulated, the sale is void", also applies to the
instant case, since the price purportedly paid as indicated in the contract of sale was
simulated for no payment was actually made. 1 9
Consideration and consent are essential elements in a contract of sale. Where a
party's consent to a contract of sale is vitiated or where there is lack of consideration
due to a simulated price, the contract is null and void ab initio.
Anent the second issue, the PhP50,000 paid by petitioners to respondents as
consideration for the transfer of the 500-square meter lot to petitioners must be
restored to the latter. Otherwise, an unjust enrichment situation ensues. The facts
clearly show that the 500-square meter lot is legally owned by petitioners as shown by
the testimony of de Leon; therefore, they have no legal obligation to pay PhP50,000
therefor. Art. 22 of the Civil Code provides that "every person who through an act or
performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the
same to him". Considering that the 512 square-meter lot on which respondents' house
is located is clearly owned by petitioners, then the Court declares petitioners' legal
ownership over said 512 square-meter lot. The amount of PhP50,000 should only earn
interest at the legal rate of 6% per annum from the date of ling of complaint up to
nality of judgment and not 12% since such payment is neither a loan nor a forbearance
of credit. 2 0 After nality of decision, the amount of PhP50,000 shall earn interest of
12% per annum until fully paid.
The award of moral and exemplary damages must be reinstated in view of the
fraud or fraudulent machinations employed by respondents on petitioners. The grant of
damages in the concept of attorney's fees in the amount of PhP10,000 must be
maintained considering that petitioners have to incur litigation expenses to protect
their interest in conformity to Art. 2208 (2) 2 1 of the Civil Code.
Considering that respondents have built their house over the 512-square meter
portion legally owned by petitioners, we leave it to the latter what course of action they
intend to pursue in relation thereto. Such is not an issue in this petition.
WHEREFORE , the instant petition is hereby GRANTED . Accordingly, the CA
Decision dated July 20, 2006 and Resolution dated March 30, 2007 in CA-G.R. CV No.
83595 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The Decision of the RTC, Branch 28 in
Cabanatuan City in Civil Case No. 4063 is REINSTATED with the MODIFICATION that
the amount of fty thousand pesos (PhP50,000) which respondents must return to
petitioners shall earn an interest of 6% per annum from the date of ling of the
complaint up to the nality of this Decision, and 12% from the date of nality of this
Decision until fully paid. CcHDaA
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, Chico-Nazario, Nachura and Peralta, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
We, spouses Ramon Lequin and Virginia R. Lequin, of legal age, Filipino and
residents of Diamond Court, Brixton Ville Subdivision, Camarin, Kalookan City, for and
in consideration of FIFTEEN THOUSAND PESOS (P15,000.00), Philippine
currency, paid to us wholeheartedly by the spouses Raymundo Vizconde and
Salome Lequin , of legal age, Filipino and residents of Sto. Rosario, Aliaga, Nueva Ecija,
we transfer, cede and sell absolutely to said spouses Raymundo Vizconde and Salome
Lequin and to their successors-in-interest the . . . .
16. U-Bix Corporation v. Bandiola, G.R. No. 157168, June 26, 2007, 525 SCRA 566, 581;
citing Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying, G.R. No. 144773, May 16, 2005, 458
SCRA 496, 512.
17. Rollo, p. 103.
18. Montecillo v. Reynes, G.R. No. 138018, July 26, 2002, 385 SCRA 244, 256; citing Ocejo
Perez & Co. v. Flores, 40 Phil. 921 (1920); as reiterated in Mapalo v. Mapalo, Nos. L-
21489 & L-21628, May 19, 1966, 17 SCRA 114.
19. See Vda. De Catindig v. Heirs of Catalina Roque, No. L-23777, November 26, 1976, 74
SCRA 83; see also Yu Bun Guan v. Ong, G.R. No. 144735, October 18, 2001, 367 SCRA
559; Rongavilla v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83974, August 14, 1998, 294 SCRA 289.
20. Sunga-Chan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164401, June 25, 2008, 555 SCRA 275, 287-
289; citing Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97412, July 12,
1994, 234 SCRA 78 and Reformina v. Tomol, Jr., No. L-59096, October 11, 1985, 139
SCRA 260.
21. Art. 2208. In the absence of stipulation, attorney's fees and expenses of litigation, other
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2018 cdasiaonline.com
than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) When the defendant's act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third
persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest .